Ibrahim Negm
Senior advisor to the Grand Mufti of Egypt.
Islamist radicals construct false narratives that blend religion with politics to distort reality. They turn victims into villains and present themselves as righteous defenders of the faith – often claiming to be the voice of heaven or self-appointed guardians of Sharia. Yet behind this pious facade lies a fragile, power-hungry project that values neither individual citizens nor the nation, seeing everyone else as either a tool to use or a threat to eliminate. When confronted with hard facts, these extremists respond with deflection – denying evidence, attacking the messenger, or twisting the truth – rather than engaging in any self-reflection.
Trying to engage such radicals is like arguing with a narcissist who can never be wrong. Every conversation with them quickly becomes a one-sided lecture. They refuse to find any common ground with opponents – or even with their own allies. To them, “dialogue” means the stronger party dictating terms to the weaker. Talk of the nation or the public good is heard only as talk of power and control. Any call for reform or criticism is immediately taken as a personal attack on their self-image or as part of a conspiracy against them.
For these reasons, compromise is impossible. Any concession is humiliation; admitting a mistake is heresy against their mission. They enter discussions only to prove themselves right and paint others as traitors. During their brief time in government, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood was unwilling to share power or accept dissent, convinced that its electoral victory gave it an irreversible mandate . Brotherhood leaders even rejected a fellow Islamist party’s initiative to reconcile with secular opponents, viewing it as a betrayal by that ally . This my-way-or-the-highway mentality is a hallmark of their narcissism. Like a toxic partner, they cannot be reasoned with or expected to meet anyone halfway.
Whenever they fail or commit wrongdoing, Islamist radicals never accept blame. Instead, they reach for conspiracies to explain away every setback. Any political defeat is portrayed as a “war on Islam,” and any loss of power is cast as a “deep state” conspiracy. We saw this clearly during the Brotherhood’s rule: its leaders grew paranoid, blaming every challenge on “enemies” – from judges and journalists to foreign agents – rather than addressing their own mistakes . They cast themselves as infallible and under siege, labeling critics “conspirators” or “apostates”, and dismissing opposing governments as “puppet regimes”. By claiming perpetual victimhood, they absolve themselves of responsibility and justify extreme actions as necessary defense of the faith.
This mentality also means they do not truly listen to others. In any exchange, they listen only to collect ammunition. Grievances raised will later be twisted into propaganda or used to smear opponents. Islamist media often gather public complaints not to solve them, but to hurl them back as accusations against critics. In their eyes, anyone not with them is against them – and thus fair game to defame without remorse.
Ultimately, attempting a genuine dialogue with such extremists is futile. True dialogue requires all sides to share a commitment to finding common ground for the common good. These radicals simply do not have that commitment. To them, the only acceptable outcome is their total victory. “National interest” means nothing outside their own agenda; “compromise” means defeat; and “truth” is whatever narrative serves their cause. With that mindset, any meeting becomes fruitless at best, or a trap at worst.
Far from softening their stance, so-called dialogue sessions just give radicals a stage to grandstand and gather intel. This is why even broad national initiatives exclude them. Egypt’s ongoing National Dialogue has left out the Muslim Brotherhood, knowing that inviting a group deemed terrorist and unrepentant would only sabotage the process . Such exclusion isn’t just about security; it reflects the reality that you cannot negotiate with people who see everyone across the table as an enemy.
In my view, any well-intentioned attempt to reason with these zealots is bound to fail. Until they learn humility, accept pluralism, and put the nation’s interests above their own, any “dialogue” with them will remain nothing more than a one-sided monologue.
